Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2021 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 484 - HC - Companies LawMaintainability of petition - Determination of Contractual agreement - it is contended that the 2nd respondent-Company neither being a Government Company nor being an instrumentality of the State, the Writ Petition is otherwise also not maintainable - HELD THAT:- The answering respondent is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the law relating to Companies; there is no material placed on record to show that it answers the description of Government Company as defined u/s 617 of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 or the corresponding provision of the Companies Act, 2013; this apart, no prima facie evidence is placed to substantiate the contention that the said Company fills the character of State or its instrumentality fitting into the definition given under Article 12 of the Constitution of India - the Writ Petition is misconceived. The contents of the letter of appointment keep beyond the pale of any doubt that appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual in substance; where the determination of services is occasioned by the terms of the contract or anything done under the terms, it does not become actionable in law, subject to all just exceptions into which the argued case of the petitioner does not fit - there is no choate cause of action for maintaining an action in law and more particularly, for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as rightly contended by the other side. The vehement argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the removal is stigmatic in character and therefore, an enquiry ought to have been held before issuing the impugned removal order, is bit difficult to countenance; arguably, had the answering respondent been an instrumentality of the State, perhaps different factors would have entered the fray of consideration; even otherwise, it is open to the answering respondent- Company, assuming that it is an instrumentality of the State, to have the services of managerial personnel purely on contract basis, when it is admitted that there are no Recruitment Rules having binding effect - there is some material which suggests that the impugned termination of the contract for service is preceded by some allegations, is arguably true; but that per se does not exclude the respondent-Company from invoking the conditions of contract entered into by the petitioner; as already mentioned, had the contract in question graduated to a legal status as it happens in Public Service Jurisprudence, the matter would have been different, since the infraction of the conditions of service are treated under the Service Rules which usually have abundant public law character; it is needless to mention that if the impugned action or anything done preceding the same, amounts to some other cause of action, it is open to the petitioner to litigate on it. Petition dismissed.
|